Woodland's Planning Commission unanimously approved a conditional use permit for a new Starbucks Cafe Drive-thru on the west end of town late Thursday night.

But not everyone was perky about the decision, namely Sunny Ghai, franchise owner of the Burger King adjacent to the proposed Starbucks at 281 and 271 W. Main St.

Rite Aid would sandwich in the new coffee shop on the southeast corner of Ashley Avenue and West Main Street.

What began as a routine staff recommendation to approve the Starbucks project last week percolated into an epic, two-part, six-hour "discussion" culminating in the continued public hearing Thursday night.

Among traffic issues, parking stall clarifications, directional signage questions - ad nauseum - one of the major arguments was whether or not Starbucks itself is considered a restaurant.

Ghai said the proposed project would be a breach of recorded covenants, conditions and restrictions for that development which restricts another restaurant.

These covenants, conditions and restrictions were negotiated between Starbucks applicant Petrovich Development Company and Ghai, and cannot be enforced by the city, according to city attorney Kara Ueda of Best, Best & Krieger.

According to Petrovich - who was also the initial applicant for Burger King in 2009 - Starbucks is classified as a coffee shop, not a restaurant, even though it sells pre-packaged food. Food is prepared off-site and the facility has no kitchen.

"7/11 serves coffee. They cook hot dogs there. Do you call that a restaurant? No," said Petrovich.

Ghai, meanwhile, argued the proposed Starbucks - which would have 36 seats - is in fact a restaurant because it has seating.

"A theater has seating. It serves food. Is it a restaurant?" Petrovich rebutted. "What restaurant do we know that doesn't have a kitchen? Starbucks doesn't have a kitchen."

Both the existing Burger King and Rite Aid on the site have drive-thrus, making for a third at Starbucks. Yet at the Oct. 15, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, Petrovich said that another drive-thru on the site's middle parcel would "not come before (the Commission)," attorney Greg Giatto of Stoel Rives pointed out, representing Ghai.

"Yes, that is in the minutes," affirmed Senior City Planner Paul Hanson. "They did say they would not put another drive-thru there, but the project was not conditioned as such so you can't really hold them to that."

Ghai countered that a verbal agreement should count for something, that not everything has to be in "black and white and bold" when it is "on the tape and in the CC&Rs."

To appease the commission's concerns over traffic safety on West Main Street and circulation problems within the shopping center's parking lot, Petrovich said he would comply with whatever conditions the commission deemed appropriate for the project.

For example, he agreed to pay for the re-striping of West Main Street to allow for a left turn into the businesses for customers heading west, which is presently illegal for drivers (some of whom do it anyway). If that doesn't work, he said, he'll pay for a raised median.

The developer further agreed to pay for additional directional paint striping and standing signs within the parking lot help facilitate smooth traffic flow.

Finally, the issue of Starbucks' categorical exemption as it pertains to the California Environmental Quality Act was called into question. The categorical exemption essentially says that approval of the project would not have any significant impacts to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality as an urban in-fill project.

Burger King was also granted the same categorical exemption in 2009.

"There is little doubt that a third drive-thru in a small shopping center that already contains two drive-thrus will create significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality and safety," Stoel Rives attorneys said in a letter to the Commission dated April 18. The firm further indicated that an Environmental Impact Report needs to be conducted.

Hanson maintained the half-acre Starbucks site qualifies as an appropriate in-fill project.

Rite Aid, which will sit to the immediate west of Starbucks, is in favor of the project. Company spokesman Raymond Payne said he believes the addition will be a "positive addition to the center," in a letter of support to the commission, dated April 17.

The proposed 2,700-square-foot Starbucks building will include 1,700-square-feet of the Starbucks' Caf? Drive-thru with 36 seats, and 1,700 square feet of retail space.

The new drive-thru will replace an existing Starbucks about a block away at 361 W. Main, inside the Westgate Shopping Center which houses anchor store Raley's.

Starbucks has one drive-thru shop on the east side of town in the Gateway Shopping Center, 2021 Bronze Star Dr. The company has two other locations in Woodland, in addition to the shop inside Westgate Shopping Center, including the one inside Gibson Plaza at Gibson Road and Pioneer Avenue, 1801 E. Gibson Road, and inside Target at Gateway Center, 18455 County Road 102.

"This is harder than I thought it would be," said Petrovich. "I thought Gateway was hard. But here we are having a major debate, which is fine. That's what the process is for."

The Gateway Shopping Center on the east side of Woodland, including two Starbucks, Costco, Target, Michaels and Best Buy, provides approximately $2 million in sales tax revenue for the city annually.

Though the Planning Commission approved the conditional use permit for the drive-thru, an appeal to the decision is allowed for a certain period of time, which seems likely.

"We can all approve this and spend (the) city's time and money doing something that is prohibited in the CC&Rs which are recorded and they prevent a restaurant," said Ghai. "Save the city time, money and not unnecessarily take this to a battle."